BTF/PTM

Thanks for the replies! They do help, but my question is not the cliche of where life came from. I fully understand that we as a species do not understand how that works, and I also accept the notion that we may never know. Here's another version of my question, maybe it will help those of us who suffer from occasional dyslexia, myself included =) I am asking specifically about the mechanism of how RNA self-replicates. My preposition is, I think the term 'self-replication' is misused, which is to say that a molecule of RNA, the basis of living DNA-based tissue, does not look in a mirror and consciously decide to split in two and spontaneously generate duplicate chemical compounds and end up with a twin of itself. I would envision RNA 'self-replication' as being a process of not only the eventual development and existence of RNA, but also the development and existence of all the enzymes and proteins that actually perform the 'self-replication' in a series of steps including disassembly, reading, protein formation and eventual assembly of a second RNA strand. To sum it up, my preposition is that RNA does not actually 'self-replicate', it is a process involving many types of molecules that all had to develop in order for the basis of life to develop the capability of duplication. I draw this preposition from the basic understanding of how individual (but complete) cells replicate, they use a small army of helper molecules to build new RNA and DNA, their RNA and DNA do not wake up each morning and decide to make twins of themselves. They make copies of themselves with extensive help from many other molecules, but they do not 'self-replicate'. Correct? Incorrect? This is the information I'm looking for. Thanks again!

Invasive bacteria can and do kill us. The original poster is correct, the replication rate and subsequent invasion rate of bacteria, compared to our own cell replication rates, leaves us pretty much defenseless should a hostile bacteria invade unchecked. On top of that, human immune systems aren't very good at killing bacteria, they're much better suited for eliminating viruses. Hence, we use antibiotics of various sorts (be it a modern pill or a plant oil or whatever) to keep a bacterial infection from getting out of control. Bacterial infections are, in my opinion, another example of the fact that we are not finished evolving yet, or at the very least that we are nowhere near the top of the food chain. A cat's spleen, for example, is proportionally far larger than ours is, they can survive infections that would reduce us to compost. Nature has plenty of ways to put us in our place, and bacteria are just one example.

Dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds in the sense of a direct, species-wide change. The same is true for us, we did not evolve directly or species-wide from apes, one branch of a past ape species adapted characteristics that eventually led to us becoming us, and parallel branch species either adapted other characteristics or remained as they were. One branch of the dinosaur tree began to adapt characteristics that eventually enabled flight, and that branch eventually became the creatures we know as birds. The evidence visible in birds are the many reptilian characteristics of birds, as well as dinosaur skeletons having recently been found with hollow bones and of course the numerous skeletons found with predecesors of modern feathers on their bodies.

Hi everyone, I couldn't find a 'beginners forum' or something of that nature to put my first post in, so here it is in this one as this forum is related to my first question. Hi all =) Ok, so here is my question, with a bit of preamble to give it validity. Along with my general curiosity on all science topics, from engineering to genetics to astronomy to paleontology, I have developed a new curiosity for the ongoing debate of where life on our planet first came from. I generally understand the theorized process of how chemical compounds became amino acids that eventually became very large coils of proteins that eventually became what we identify as genetic code. I also understand that various steps in this process have been verified under lab conditions. What I do not understand in all this, is the term 'self-replicating', as pertains to the critical step at which the proteins are able to produce copies of themselves. The misunderstanding, I think, comes from my own missing bits of microbiology and molecular biology knowledge, and that's what I've come here to ask for. That question is, what is the science behind how these proteins are considered self-replicating? As my own mind envisions this process, using the function of a single cell as its example, these proteins in fact do not in any fashion replicate themselves in the simple sense of spontaneously sprouting extensions of every adjoined compound and eventually producing some siamese twin molecule. As I envision it, these complex proteins in fact developed ALONG WITH groups of other complex molecules, including the disassemblers, reassemblers, enzymes, etc etc etc. In other words, for the self-replicating proteins to have originated, many other complex molecules had to develop in parallel that allowed them to replicate. A mental picture of duplicating a city building could be used, I suppose - a building (which is just as inanimate as a complex protein molecule) cannot replicate itself, but with materials on hand and an army of helper molecules (workers) that are good at tasks like arranging these materials and reverse-engineering the building and supporting various intermediate structures, copies of the buliding could be produced with high efficiency and high accuracy. From a sufficiently high altitude, one may only see the large chunks of the buliding shaping themselves and draw the conclusion that somehow this structure is duplicating itself. Is my idea anywhere near correct? As a related side note, if anyone can provide links to essays or papers written on the idea, I'd welcome the info. As aforementioned, I ask this question only because I feel I don't understand it (along with many many other people) because I am missing pieces of information. Thanks, everyone =)